Democratic National Committee v. Wisconsin State Legislature, 141 S.Ct. 28

Background

In September 2020 a federal district court in Wisconsin enjoined the State’s rule requiring absentee ballots to be received by Election Day and instead allowed ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within six additional days (Nov. 9). The injunction was based on findings about COVID-driven mail delays and administrative backlogs that threatened to discard many timely-requested ballots.
The Seventh Circuit stayed the district court’s injunction pending appeal; the parties applied to the Supreme Court to vacate that stay.
The Supreme Court (per curiam) denied the applications to vacate the stay. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh each wrote concurrences agreeing with the denial; Justice Kagan (joined by Breyer and Sotomayor) dissented.
Major legal tensions: (1) Purcell-related concerns about courts altering election rules close to an election; (2) deference to state legislatures and election administrators in pandemic policy choices; and (3) application of the Anderson–Burdick balancing test to absentee-vote deadlines amid COVID-related mail and administrative delays.
The district court found (among other things) that mail and processing delays could lead to tens of thousands (possibly up to ~100,000) otherwise timely-postmarked mail ballots being uncounted without an extension; the State had undertaken measures (mailing absentee ballot applications, drop boxes, in-person absentee voting periods) and reported over a million absentee ballots already returned by late October.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a federal court could extend Wisconsin’s absentee-ballot receipt deadline close to the election	Extension was necessary because COVID-related mail and administrative delays would otherwise disenfranchise many timely-requested, timely-postmarked ballots	Federal courts should not rewrite state election rules weeks before an election; such changes cause confusion and usurp legislative authority	Supreme Court denied vacating the Seventh Circuit stay; concurring opinions held district court’s injunction unwarranted and stayed it; dissent would have vacated the stay and reinstated the extension
Whether Purcell bars appellate correction of a district court’s last-minute election injunction	Purcell’s timing caution should yield when substantial disenfranchisement is shown	Purcell warns against judicial changes near elections; but appellate courts may correct erroneous lower-court injunctions	Concurrences: Purcell counsels against district courts changing rules late; appellate correction of a district injunction is proper and did not violate Purcell
Whether federal courts should second-guess state legislatures’ COVID-era election choices	Courts must protect the right to vote where state rules, as applied, produce severe burdens on voters because of pandemic conditions	State legislatures (and election administrators) are primary decisionmakers on election procedures; federal judges lack the competence and democratic accountability to substitute rules	Concurrences: defer to legislatures and election administrators; district court misapplied judicial role in pandemic. Dissent: federal courts may enjoin state rules that impose severe burdens when supported by factual findings
Whether Wisconsin’s receipt-by-Election-Day absentee deadline, as applied in 2020, unduly burdened the right to vote under Anderson–Burdick	The deadline, given the pandemic, USPS delays, and administrative backlogs, would discard large numbers of timely-postmarked ballots and therefore severely burden the right to vote	Reasonable deadlines are essential to orderly elections; Wisconsin’s deadline is common nationwide, many accommodations existed (drop boxes, in-person absentee voting, mailed applications), and voters could plan ahead	Concurrences: deadline is reasonable and constitutionally permissible here; the district court’s balancing was legally and/or factually deficient. Dissent: district court’s factual findings supported a severe burden and justified the six-day extension

Key Cases Cited

Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (courts should exercise caution before altering election rules close to an election; last-minute changes may cause voter confusion)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (Anderson–Burdick framework: evaluate burdens on voting against state interests)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for burdens on voting rights)
Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973) (a voter’s failure to meet a reasonable deadline does not itself render the deadline unconstitutional)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (upholding a reasonable state election regulation against constitutional attack)
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (limits on state-court departures from legislative schemes for appointing Presidential electors)
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) (Elections Clause recognizes legislatures’ primary role in prescribing election rules)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for injunctive relief requires balancing harms and considering public interest)
Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (invalidating state restrictions that infringe fundamental voting rights)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (judicial enforcement of constitutional protections in state election law)